It is not necessary anymore to place flavour in 'route nopack'Is it useful to dare all husky users to update their scripts?
statement and it is not used there anyway. The 'route' description in
the documentation was extremely crooked and, moreover, not everything
was correct.
The description is now given in compliance with actualTake a look above. All users have to update their scripts, if they are updating.
functionality and it is greatly expanded.
MichaelBye/2 Torsten
It is not necessary anymore to place flavour in 'route nopack'Is it useful to dare all husky users to update their scripts?
statement and it is not used there anyway. The 'route'
description in the documentation was extremely crooked and,
moreover, not everything was correct.
The description is now given in compliance with actualTake a look above. All users have to update their scripts, if they are updating.
functionality and it is greatly expanded.
Ah, okay. 'Neccessary' sounded like 'without any old option'.Is it useful to dare all husky users to update their scripts?You are not obliged to update your scripts. It is not necessary now to
use 'route hold nopack' instead of 'route nopack'. But nobody is
forced to remove the flavour from the 'route nopack' statement if
there is a flavour there. It is just ignored as it has always been ignored. And this is written in the documentation. Please read it.
Done. ;-)The description is now given in compliance with actual
functionality and it is greatly expanded.
Take a look above. All users have to update their scripts, ifTake a look above. :)
they are updating.
MichaelBye/2 Torsten
Sysop: | Nelgin |
---|---|
Location: | Plano, TX |
Users: | 509 |
Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
Uptime: | 105:52:14 |
Calls: | 8,193 |
Files: | 15,442 |
Messages: | 913,071 |